God created us to be when compkete both a physical body and a soul, as all those who have died in Christ still await when they are glorified whole again.I think it's unfortunate and unhelpful that you are unwilling to answer a simple question. However, I will attempt to answer you. I will also try to put two and two together and work off certain assumptions about your position since you are unwilling to make them explicit for whatever reason.
This is not entirely accurate. In the unity of our person, body and soul, what is said of either part is true of the person. For example, I am six feet tall. This refers specifically to my body and therefore is true of my person, though has very little to do with my soul. I can likewise speak to those attributes that are true of my soul-- even after death-- and say that I am in heaven, though separated from my body. Your construction above is only true if personal attributes are only described as that which involves soul and body (e.g. walking, since it necessitates both volition and physical movement). Since personal attributes are true even when they refer to one part of our humanity, I do not reject the proposition you pose above.
Based on my rejection of your first proposition, saying that Paul is in heaven poses no problem.
Again, since these propositions are built off of a fallacious premise, there is again no real problem. Saint Paul is in heaven. It does not follow that his complete person is in heaven. It is also true that Saint Paul is dead and in the grave. Human persons are made of both material and immaterial substances.
Here is the crux of the problem. You have equated personhood exclusively with the soul. It would seem to logically follow that the body has no real part in the essence of mankind, only their souls according to your argumentation. It now makes perfect sense that you can discard unity between the lifeless body of Christ with the divine nature since the person, in your line of reasoning, is consubstantial with the soul and not the body. Unfortunately, the logical theological errors of this doctrine are many.
So let me try to clear up the remainder of your post:
Persons in the intermediate state are not complete persons. They are waiting to be reunited with their bodies.
A complete person is made of body and soul. Your argumentation suggests that the essence of personhood is the soul, which allows you to take the leap that a soul in heaven is a person in heaven, yet a body on earth has nothing to do with a person. Since a human person is a) made of two parts and b) the attributes of each part are true of the person, then c) we can affirm that the souls in heaven are not existing in absence of their person.
The conundrum here should be irrelevant at this point.
Finally, your appeal to Paul's being out of the body and present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8) hardly substantiates your point, since it is the soul that is the concious part of the body. It does not follow that soul = person any more than body = person. Body + soul = person.
I would still appreciate a concise answer to your thoughts on @BayouHuguenot 's post #46. I am confused as to your reasons for not answering this simple question. I'll leave my imagination as to the reason out of it.
Blessings,
Tim
Did God die on the cross?
- Thread starter Delahunt
- Start date
- Status
God created us to be when compkete both a physical body and a soul, as all those who have died in Christ still await when they are glorified whole again.
Bible affirms fully God and Man, so he affirms Jesus just faked feeling pain and suffering then? How can Jesus be our sin bearer if not fully human?
Do God slipped on and than took off his humanity?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I don't really understand what you are saying, but what I think Craig is saying is that the divine mind functions for the human mind in Jesus. He is saying that because he thinks if we posit two minds in Christ, then we have to ask the question, "So which mind in Jesus is doing the thinking?"
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That is not what Craig is saying. I don't know how you move from "The divine nous replaces the human nous" to "Jesus faked it."
Would he then be saying that the mind of Jesus is just that of God, placed in a human body?
IF not fully human, would Jesus not really experience pain and suffering as a Man, especially while upon the Cross?
[Moderator]Ron, I discussed your posts with other moderators. If you're unwilling to answer Tim's questions in a straightforward way, the thread will be closed or your participation on it will be restricted.[/Moderator]
I am hesitant to say much about the post quoted above, because anything I do say may be subjected to the same process of imaginative and inaccurate expansion. This style of interaction reduces clarity and discourages communication.
So to the general reader of this thread, my position is the same as that of John Brown of Haddington (quoted in #53 above). I agree with what he says, and I think that WLC 86, which teaches that Christ remains united to the bodies of believers after death, suggests a partial analogy from a related case. More simply:
1. Christ died. That is:
The theanthropic person experienced the separation of human body and soul.
2. The hypostatic union remained intact. That is:
The union of two complete natures in one person was not interrupted with reference to any aspect of either nature.
Anything beyond this attributed to me is not to be taken as actually expressive of my own views.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
All one needs to feel pain is for C-fibers to be firing. Technically, cyborgs could feel pain.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Sort of.
But not real pain, as in experiencing it as a real human does.
If Jesus not really human, what resurrected then out from the grave?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Craig would say the second Person of the Trinity. All Craig is saying is that the Divine Nous replaced 1/3 of Jesus' human soul. Craig is wrong, but he isn't saying what people think he is saying.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Craig would say that Jesus experiences all of human pain that a human experiences except for the subsection of the soul where the Divine Nous replaced the Human Nous. He would say that isn't a problem, since the Nous (on traditional glosses of the soul) is only for intellectual activities.
@BayouHuguenot
Jacob, You didn't answer my last question above and I wish you would also address the one below in relation to the last question above if you don't mind. I am learning a lot here.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He never addresses that particular issue. It's tricky, even in Patristic debates. Athanasius specifically used that terminology, since it avoids the problem of "which mind of Jesus is thinking right now?"
The problem is that it really doesn't do justice to what the Church would later teach about the 2 Wills of Christ.
Craig would say that Jesus has 1 2/3 souls, where has traditional Christology would say that Jesus has 2 souls/minds.
Can you tell me why you think it is incorrect to believe the Divine Person animates the human body? I will have more questions about the Divine Person and the body of Christ and what that entails in more detail tomorrow. I have so much to learn.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
As it stands, it isn't incorrect as long as it affirms a full human mind and will. The problem comes when the Church adopted the two minds/two wills Christology of St Maximus. As Jesus has a full human will and a full human mind, Craig chooses not to affirm that.
Here is the main problem on all sides: in any given situation, which mind is Jesus using: the human or the divine? Remember there is only one divine person (which is why Gordon Clark's disciples are Nestorians. They see this problem and come to a terrible conclusion).
Analytic theologians (rightly, I think) reformulated this along the following lines:
There are two minds in Christ, but there is an asymmetrical accessing relation between the divine and human mind.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Tim,
I intended to answer you in 51. It was my first post after your 49. The answer was in the affirmative. I then saw that what I had placed in quotes above my response was something that makes no sense and I realized later that you couldn’t have known my post was for you. Last night I edited out what was in quotes. I didn’t even recognize whose quote it was. What remains has been my original response to you.
That said, I then reconsidered whether I could truthfully answer in the affirmative given that I couldn’t be certain what Jacob meant by “united.” So, rather than point you to my previous answer in 51, I sent a pm to Jacob Monday afternoon with my position relative to his direct quote. I didn’t solicit his response nor did I discourage it. I just wanted to make my view of his quote plain to him. From the public thread, it appears to me he thinks we agree. But even if he said we agreed, that agreement would be predicted upon a particular understanding of union. Depending on that, there could be no true agreement. That’s why I can’t give you a simple yes or no.
Here it is:
“The human soul of Christ and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to the divine person so that the hypostatic union isn't broken.”
Jacob,
My position is, the hypostatic union isn’t dependent upon the divine essence of the Second Person occupying the human body for three days. The mystical union of the Second Person entails a divine person united to a human nature without division or confusion. That’s the essence (small pun intended). If the Second Person’s soul can be separated from the body, then so can his divine nature without violating the hypostatic union just as long as the two natures remain intact as one person. If a human person can exist in the intermediate state apart from the body yet still remain a human person due to the preeminence of the soul (Vos), then all the more can a divine person with a human and divine nature be separated from his human body while remaining a two nature person. To deny this is to give undo precedence to the body of the Son. It’s also to imply that persons do not exist if separated from the body. Thoughts?
In addition, any union a person, whether divine or human, has with its corpse will be difficult to define. It would be akin to sacramental union or an identity union, but not a union of perichoresis.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Without the Son taking to himself a human mind..., then only mindless humans were redeemed. Of course there aren’t any such humans. So, if men are redeemed, then the Son has a human mind.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is part of the problem here with your responses RWD. py3ak notes to you, "I am hesitant to say much about the post quoted above, because anything I do say may be subjected to the same process of imaginative and inaccurate expansion." I believe you have done the same thing here with me. Some would say it is an obfuscation if it was avoiding answering a question. I can't accuse you of that since I wasn't asking anything from you. At the same time I have to say that the response you write above addresses nothing I was even considering.
Time for a break from this thread.
Last edited:
- Status
